Am 03.05.2010 17:23, schrieb Marco Hogewoning:
>> Is it acceptable for you if this is done when there is an IRT (and
>> require it to have an IRT before 2013)?
>> I don't think you can 'require it to have an IRT by 2013', there are
> orphans and stale object, those will not magically will get an IRT
> attached. But we are getting into details where I think we first have
> to see where this proposal goes. I merely just pointed out there was
> a design oversight.
Just for clarification. This part came from the plan by APNIC to do
something like an yearly frequent update request in combination with not
having something like abuse-mailbox attributes or anything else
activated in the whois database.
The idea was to ask every member to update or accept their whois records
once a year actively. Like .com registrars doing it already. I think
this is a good idea as well, and this is brought into a proposal for
APNIC very soon.
I think we should agree on not accepting to create new or change
abuse-mailbox attributes after a specific date. That is absolutely fine
with me. If there will be a proposal where network owners will be forced
to update their whois records yearly, we could put the cleanup into this
proposal as well.
> Now concerning the proposal, IMHO it won't solve any of the problems.
> You get less data, but still no guarantee it's there or it's correct.
> This does not add anything compared to the current model.
Exactly and this is the reason, why this proposal is a good one in my
opinion, it's not adding anything, but it makes it far easier to
understand the data.
The point with this proposal is, that it should give a understandable
definition how abuse contact information "have" to be published.
This proposal shall show only a single place where abuse contact
information can be found and not several that create confusion even
within the RIPE members community.
Another advantage is the fact that APNIC and probably AfriNIC will use
the same way, which makes things much more easy on a global sight.
> As a simple and alternative suggestion:
>> Make the abuse-mailbox atrribute mandatory for inetnum and inet6num
We discussed that as well, but there were several things that made it
more complicated.
1.) there is no abuse-mailbox attribute within the inetnum and inet6num
objects. That means this will need a major change in database.
2.) There is only the opportunity of publishing an email-address. Where
do you want to publish further information? Phone numbers a personal
contact address, ...?
3.) IRT-Objects exists, it's already there, The only thing that has to
be changed is the fact that it has to be mandatory and contains a
mandatory abuse-mailbox attribute.
> That was the original proposal at the start of the century when we
> introduced the abuse-mailbox stuff, by that time there was also a
> very lenghy discussion on IRT being an alternative. Please refer to
> the archives of the database working group for records on these
> discussions.
I have read the really interesting discussion. Both ideas, IRT-Object
and abuse-mailbox attribute are good. That's the reason why we are using
both in our proposal. We just change the place where it should occur.
Thank you for your feedback.
Tobias
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20100503/fb031d51/attachment.sig>

The RIPE NCC uses cookies. Some of these cookies may have been set already. More information about our cookies can be found in our privacypolicy. You can accept our cookies either by clicking here or by continuing to use the site.